Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 1st, 2006

[Paul Lepsoe]

I believe everyone will agree that the deputy returning officer, or the clerk, hands over completed bingo cards during the day. However, I think that the principle of the right of candidates' representatives to be there is important, for other reasons. Perhaps it would be enough for them to be at another identification table. Whatever the case may be, I believe we should maintain the principle of the right of candidate representatives to be there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Plamondon, are you okay?

Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I'd like to continue in the same vein as Mr. Plamondon. I don't know whether Elections Canada has monitored this phenomenon, but witnesses from certain political parties are being paid $75 to appear. It looks like there's not even any control: they're fighting to find out who can pay whom in order to be there.

I remember that, one time, a person came to conduct an audit at one of the polling stations. That person represented a political party and had been paid $75. I checked that day to see whether anyone had voted for that political party; however, no one had.

I see there's a flaw in the act. Without accusing anyone, I can nevertheless say that someone is going around with a big roll of cash and paying people to be there. That wasn't even reported to Elections Canada. Perhaps there should be a limit, I don't know. You've no doubt heard about it, and I'd like to hear your comments on it.

Furthermore, with regard to donations for leadership races, do you think the age of donors should be stated? Is it normal for an 11-year-old child to be able to give a candidate $5,000? I know it's becoming increasingly ridiculous. In these kinds of situations, we see that Canadians or other individuals no longer respect certain things. We introduced Bill C-24, and I'm proud of it. Unfortunately, people are finding flaws. If I wrote a $5,000 cheque to my 11-year-old child, I'd be surprised if he was very proud to learn at 21 that I had withdrawn $5,000 from his bank account. Just imagine! Seeing an amount of $5,400 withdrawn from the account! I'd really like to know what you, as a representative of a political party, think of that, and to hear your recommendations for putting a stop to these practices. Don't tell me no one's violated the act! I don't want to hear that. I'd like to have recommendations for putting a stop to these stupidities because we're the laughing stock of a lot of people. We pass bills guaranteeing that we have the best solution. A political party introduced Bill C-24, but we're caught in ridiculous situations, and we're being laughed at.

I'd like to hear from you all. What solutions, what proposals or what comments can you give us to put a stop to these kinds of situations?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

We can start now with the Conservative Party.

[Paul Lepsoe]

As regards the payments to candidates' representatives, I believe it's a special tradition in the Maritimes that I'm not very familiar with. It's something...

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

No, it happened in Toronto this time.

[Paul Lepsoe]

Oh, that's nice. I thought it was unique to the Maritimes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order.

Can we just answer the question, please?

[Paul Lepsoe]

The issue of donations made by youths is an example of the technical problems caused by Ms. McDonough's proposal. I don't know whether you were here, but the NDP is proposing that the purchase of a membership be considered a donation. Will we have to say that a person under 18 years of age may not become a member of a party because that would constitute a donation? That's a minor example of a technical problem.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

We're not talking about $5,400.

[Paul Lepsoe]

That's a minor example of a technical problem. If we say that membership fees constitute a form of donation, that causes technical problems that have to be taken into consideration. In principle, I believe that, in all parties, a person 14 or 15 years of age may take part in the party's activities. Can we deny that person the right to make a donation? I don't know. I believe the act is clear: to make a gift, you have to use your own money. If the act is complied with, is there really a problem? I don't know, but the act is very clear in that regard: you have to use your own money.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. MacKinnon, would you like to comment?

[Steven MacKinnon]

Mr. Godin and I come from the same province, and we are familiar with the political traditions with regard to deputy returning officers. There is indeed a tradition of paying people who work at the polling stations in the Maritimes. I don't see anything inappropriate about it, as long as those payments are recorded on the list of candidates' expenses.

As for contributions from youths under 18 years of age, I have learned that one of our party's leadership candidates repaid those kinds of contributions. We have responded to a public reaction in his case. I think that's appropriate in the circumstances.

Having said that, I share the view of my friend Mr. Lepsoe. Can we afford to go to court to prohibit a youth under 18 years of age from making contributions? Can a youth make a contribution to the political process provided it involves his or her own money? You have to be at least 14 years old to vote for a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. You have to be at least 14 to be a young Liberal registered on our delegate list. We've previously seen youths taking part in a democratic exercise in a political party. In my opinion, we must act with extreme care in this regard.

I'll close by asking you whether you are sure that no one under 18 years of age has contributed to the New Democratic Party, and whether your procedures for remedying this kind of situation are adequate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We're not in a debate. Just an answer to the question would be appreciated.

Mr. Gardner.

[Gilbert Gardner]

It's nevertheless strange that, at the very time the government wants to lower the age of consent for other things, we're having a discussion about a person who can make a contribution.

More seriously, each party establishes rules regarding the minimum age for membership in the party. It seems to me that's a standard. I believe that no political party accepts 11-year-old children as members. That seems to me to be a bit much at that age.

The age of membership could serve us as a guide for determining whether it's possible for a person to contribute. If you consider that, at 16, a person may become a member of a political party, then that person can also support the democratic life of that party by contributing to it.

As to representatives' expenses, that's already provided for in the act. They must be reported. If people don't report them, they violate the Canada Elections Act and are subject to prosecution. To the extent that's done in accordance with the act, we don't have a problem, whether it happens in the Maritimes or Toronto.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

[Eric Hébert]

Mr. Godin raises a fairly important question concerning the representatives of political parties. That appears in the candidate's return, but it's now required that that be done in the candidate's personal expense return. That means it isn't accounted for in that political party's election expenses at the local level. To resolve this situation, it seems to me they should be told that, if they want to pay their representatives, that's an election expense subject to the expense limit. In my view, that would be the way to solve the problem, and we could examine that solution.

As for a person's ability to contribute, I also share Mr. Godin's concerns, but the present act allows a person to pay for someone else's membership. That already happens and it's not illegal. It happens, and we've consulted Elections Canada on the subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Direct the comments to the chair, please. Thank you.

[Eric Hébert]

Yes, absolutely.

As regards nomination races, people can legally buy memberships for other people, and that's considered as a contribution by them. This procedure already exists, although I find it somewhat bizarre. I believe this arrangement can be used to enable a 12-year-old to become a member of a party because, in general, 12-year-olds don't have enough income on their own.

I believe there are ways to resolve the membership issue and to establish sensible criteria for those who can contribute, particularly amounts of money, as we've recently seen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move very quickly to our third round. We are running out of time, but this is an interesting and important discussion. I'm going to ask that we go to a three-minute round. Keep your questions short. If we could have short answers, it would be great. Pick your best questions.

Mr. Maloney is next.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

I go back to photo ID. There's a growing consensus that it would go a long way towards preventing voter fraud. There's a practical problem in that some people don't have photo ID--seniors who don't drive any longer, who use an old Ontario health card that doesn't have a photo on it, and who don't have a passport. If you were going to put in the requirement of needing a photo ID, would there be an exception, and what proof would you require for the types of individuals I have just described?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Is that question directed to anyone specifically?

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

It is to the panel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Let's start with the NDP on that side.

[Eric Hébert]

Once again, it's all about making sure we're not disenfranchising people, particularly those who aren't as well off as others, or seniors, or young people. I think photo ID per se is where we start crossing the line into the area you and we are concerned about.

As long as I think there is some mechanism by which people can swear an oath or be able to do something along those lines that actually.... If they have to show ID and they don't have ID, then the exception is that they can swear an oath. I think that might be the way to do it, because right now they don't need to show ID at all.

If we go to the step of ID and then provide the oath as the backup for the ID, it might be the best way. Then you can also track who had to swear an oath because they didn't have ID, and you can track how many people asked for that particular approach. That would help us, I think, solve any problems that could happen in the future.